So you are going to equivocate the meaning of "ignorant" as well as "reject" and everything else. Typical troll bullshit. A baby "lacks knowledge" of astrology too, but that doesn't mean astronomy isn't any more bullshit than your fairy tale deity.

Quote:

(09-03-2014 09:00 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Your fairy tale monster does not "surely exist". Not by a long shot. And again, you have failed to demonstrate that yours actually exists.

I was not suggesting that. My point was that just because a baby is ignorant of something, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. I wasn't using that fact to suggest god exists.

Really? Because what you said was this: "But then again, babies are entirely ignorant to many things; but these many things do surely exist in the material world, they just haven't encountered them yet. So it's not that we're born 'rejecting' God as much as we're born ignorant of God."

So you can add LIAR to Troll.

Quote:

(09-03-2014 09:00 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: That does not follow. It is neither a matter of "rejecting" your fairy tale monster (one can't "reject" something that doesn't exist), nor of being "ignorant of it", as again "it" would have to actually exist (which you have not shown) for one to be ignorant of "it".

Theism is the belief in God, not the existence of God.

Your statements clearly presume the existence of your fairy tale monster. Which you continue to fail to demonstrate.

Quote:

(09-03-2014 09:00 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: You keep trying to sneak the purported existence of your fairytale deity through the back door. It's not working.

Nope. You keep being presumptuous and obnoxious.

Liar again. You said: "So it's not that we're born 'rejecting' God as much as we're born ignorant of God."

Your statement presumes that this "gawd" actually exists. You have not shown that. And I don't give a flying fuck that a theist troll trolling in an atheist forum calls me obnoxious. Go fuck yourself. In the ass. With a cactus.

(09-03-2014 11:28 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: So you are going to equivocate the meaning of "ignorant" as well as "reject" and everything else. Typical troll bullshit. A baby "lacks knowledge" of astrology too, but that doesn't mean astronomy isn't any more bullshit than your fairy tale deity.

What exactly are you going on about? I never suggested that because a baby is ignorant (lacks knowledge) that what it is ignorant about must exist or be legitimate.

(09-03-2014 11:28 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Really? Because what you said was this: "But then again, babies are entirely ignorant to many things; but these many things do surely exist in the material world, they just haven't encountered them yet. So it's not that we're born 'rejecting' God as much as we're born ignorant of God."

So you can add LIAR to Troll.

I meant the idea and/or belief of God. I wasn't supposing that it must exist.

(09-03-2014 11:28 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Liar again. You said: "So it's not that we're born 'rejecting' God as much as we're born ignorant of God."

Your statement presumes that this "gawd" actually exists. You have not shown that. And I don't give a flying fuck that a theist troll trolling in an atheist forum calls me obnoxious. Go fuck yourself. In the ass. With a cactus.

(09-03-2014 11:07 PM)Charis Wrote: While the two are commonly found together, rejection is not inherent in the lack of belief. It could just be a matter of not being convinced.

Not being convinced, and thus rejecting it. Right?

Not reeeeally... it's kinda an argument of "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares."

Let's compare, say, an antitheist and an agnostic atheist. An antitheist rejects the idea or thought of the possibility of a god outright, and he's obviously not convinced.

An agnostic atheist is not convinced (also obvious), but he/she does not reject the possibility of the existence of a deity... they're just not currently convinced that one exists (though if convincing evidence of one comes up for them, this may change). An agnostic atheist will reject the statement or claim that they are a theist, because this would be an inaccurate claim.

Not reeeeally... it's kinda an argument of "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares."

Let's compare, say, an antitheist and an agnostic atheist. An antitheist rejects the idea or thought of the possibility of a god outright, and he's obviously not convinced.

An agnostic atheist is not convinced (also obvious), but he/she does not reject the possibility of the existence of a deity... they're just not currently convinced that one exists (though if convincing evidence of one comes up for them, this may change). An agnostic atheist will reject the statement or claim that they are a theist, because this would be an inaccurate claim.

Others.... please correct me if I have gotten that wrong.

I guess what I mean is that you would 'reject' the claim, until it can be proven otherwise.

(09-03-2014 11:28 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: So you are going to equivocate the meaning of "ignorant" as well as "reject" and everything else. Typical troll bullshit. A baby "lacks knowledge" of astrology too, but that doesn't mean astronomy isn't any more bullshit than your fairy tale deity.

What exactly are you going on about? I never suggested that because a baby is ignorant (lacks knowledge) that what it is ignorant about must exist or be legitimate.

What part of "ignorant of gawd" presumes that "gawd" to exist do you PRETEND to not understand?

Quote:

(09-03-2014 11:28 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Really? Because what you said was this: "But then again, babies are entirely ignorant to many things; but these many things do surely exist in the material world, they just haven't encountered them yet. So it's not that we're born 'rejecting' God as much as we're born ignorant of God."

So you can add LIAR to Troll.

I meant the idea and/or belief of God. I wasn't supposing that it must exist.

(09-03-2014 11:28 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: Liar again. You said: "So it's not that we're born 'rejecting' God as much as we're born ignorant of God."

Your statement presumes that this "gawd" actually exists. You have not shown that. And I don't give a flying fuck that a theist troll trolling in an atheist forum calls me obnoxious. Go fuck yourself. In the ass. With a cactus.

Idea and/or belief in God, not God itself.

Then say that, instead of trying to sneak in a presumption that your fairy tale monster actually exists.

Quote:There is no need to be so rude and hostile over your incomprehension.

I comprehend very well what you are saying. I'm simply calling you on your bullshit.

(09-03-2014 11:38 PM)Charis Wrote: Not reeeeally... it's kinda an argument of "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares."

Let's compare, say, an antitheist and an agnostic atheist. An antitheist rejects the idea or thought of the possibility of a god outright, and he's obviously not convinced.

An agnostic atheist is not convinced (also obvious), but he/she does not reject the possibility of the existence of a deity... they're just not currently convinced that one exists (though if convincing evidence of one comes up for them, this may change). An agnostic atheist will reject the statement or claim that they are a theist, because this would be an inaccurate claim.

Others.... please correct me if I have gotten that wrong.

I guess what I mean is that you would 'reject' the claim, until it can be proven otherwise.

No, more like "the jury's out." Can't yet say one way or the other for absolute sure. Not yet rejecting anything. Just not convinced.
Now, they would reject a statement that they believe in a god, simply because they do not... this would be an inaccuracy to say they do. They would also reject a statement saying they believe a god can't or doesn't exist.... this would be an inaccuracy to say this. So in THAT sense, a claim would be rejected based on such a claim being a misrepresentation of them at this time.